Nevertheless, many personality theoreticians have concluded that there are five main personality dimensions. McCrae and Costa (1985) accumulated ratings on 80 scales and specified five dimensions: Extraversion, agreeableness; conscientiousness; neuroticism and openness. However, Goldberg (1990) conducted a study where the participants provided self-descriptions using various terms presented by Goldberg. These terms were then divided into 75 groups and analysed via ten methods of factor analysis. The five factors, which were constantly produced, were extraversion; agreeableness; conscientiousness; emotional stability and intellect.
The most traditional method, used to assess the personality is the self-report questionnaire. In such questionnaires participants provide information about their feelings and behaviors through questions in personality tests. Self-report questionnaires are useful for analysing the personality because people know a great deal about themselves and also as they are reliable. Moreover, self-report questionnaires allow the individual to introspect and this way again the results can be reliable as it is the individual him/herself who is best at describing his/her own feelings, attitudes and beliefs. Wundt used this technique of introspection.
The present study is also using a self-report questionnaire to compare the self-ratings on extraversion to the peer ratings on extraversion, yet the questionnaire will contain various questions based on the other four dimensions of personality. The aim of the present study is to investigate a person’s insight into his or her self-concept, this is being done through the use of the self-report questionnaire. It is expected that those who indicate that they know their partner “well/very well” will have a greater correlation between their scores on extraversion.
Hypothesis
Participants who know one another well/very well are more likely to have a better correlation of their self and peer rating for extraversion.
Method
Design
This present study is part of a larger study, which is being conducted by a psychology student .49 participants were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire and also another questionnaire on behalf of their “partner”. The independent variable was the questionnaire being completed by (a) the participant and (b) the participant’s “partner”. A within subject’s experimental design was used. The questionnaire method was used to gather the data, which measured a total of five personality dimensions: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Emotional stability;Intellect.
The various questions related to each personality dimension were dissipated amongst other personality dimension questions; this was required to avoid response set.
Participants
There were a total number of 49 participants. Their ages ranged from 18-30 years old. There were both male and female participants, however there were not an equal number set because this was not an important variable. The participants were selected using opportunity sampling, as it was a quick and simple method of selection. All participants were psychology students from a university.
Apparatus and Materials
The participants were given questionnaires to complete. The scores were totaled and recorded onto a data sheet.
Procedure
The experiment took place in a lecture room of a university. On entering the experimental room the participants were read out the standardised instructions and were given a brief introduction about the experiment. They were then asked to choose and sit next to another participant who they knew well/very well. It was explained to them that they would need to complete a questionnaire and then each of them would need to complete a questionnaire on their “partner’s” behalf. The participants were also informed of their right to anonymity, confidentiality and their right to withdraw.
Two questionnaires were then given to each participant. They were told to be silent and not to negotiate their answers, and once they had completed their own questionnaire they were told to complete the second questionnaire for their “partner”. Once all participants had finished the task the participants were told that they now had to score their self-evaluation and peer evaluation questionnaire on one personality dimension. A separate information sheet was given to the participants, which explained to the participants how this must be done. All participants were required to give scores on extraversion only. It was also explained to the participants that it was not compulsory for them to score themselves or even to state their own score for extraversion.
Results
Table: Mean and Standard Deviation for Self and Peer score on extraversion
The z score for my own rating of extraversion was –3.35. The details of this can be found in appendix 3. This means that my Z score is just over 3 s.d. away from the average score for extraversion, therefore according to this sample of data I am extremely introverted.
The data from the two groups of participants are shown in the above table. The mean score for group 1 was 33.18 with a standard deviation of 6.80. Whereas the mean score for group 2 was 35.1 with a standard deviation of 7.15. The complete set of data is shown in appendix 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1 displays the actual scores of extraversion for the self-report questionnaire against the peer score. This scattergram shows a positive correlation between the two variables. Fig. 2 also displays the self and peer scores for extraversion, however these are only for those participants who whilst filling out the questionnaire for their “partner” indicated that they knew the person well or very well.
Fig. 2
A Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient and a Pearson’s r were utilised to compare the two variables- self-rating and peer rating. One test was conducted to compare the self-rating and peer rating on extraversion. For the Pearson’s test it was found that the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (N< 49, r is significant on one tailed hypothesis at the 0.01 level). In addition, for the Spearman’s test it was found that the correlation is significant at the 0.1 level. (N< 49, rho is significant on one tailed hypothesis at 0.1 level)
A second test was conducted to analyse the ratings of those individuals who had stated that they knew their “partner” well/very well. Once again, for the Pearson test, it was found that the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (N< 7, r is significant on a one-tailed hypothesis at the 0.05 level). In addition for the Spearman’s test the correlation was again significant at the 0.5 level (N< 7, rho is significant on one-tailed hypothesis at 0.5 level) the computer printout for the correlation can be found in Appendix 2.
Discussion
The hypothesis, those participants who know one another well/very well are more likely to have a better correlation of their self and peer rating for extraversion has been supported. The graphs show a positive correlation between the peer ratings and self-report ratings on extraversion, for those individuals who knew their “partner” well/very well. In addition, it has also been found that on the whole there was a positive correlation between peer and self-ratings for extraversion. Moreover, the two tests of correlation both showed a significant correlation for self and peer ratings on extraversion. The results support a number of theories in this area of psychology.
One explanation for the high number of students being extraverts could be that these individuals come to university to activate stimulation, which is the theory of Gale (1983). Therefore introverts try to avoid stimulation and so this may be why many students had a low score of introversion.
Moreover, previous research has shown that students have a good self-concept about themselves and the successful students have “self-confidence, self-acceptance and feelings of adequacy and personal petence”. Therefore it can be argued that the present study in some way has proved this in that many students had high correlations for extraversion. Furthermore, one could argue that one would require much self-confidence to attend university.
The results for the present study reinforce Goldberg’s study on personality. In that he also found high self and peer rating correlations indicating that self-report questionnaires show a high level of introspection.
It is important to consider the validity of the experiment. The experiment involved the use of self –report questionnaires, however this method can be distorted. An individual can give an extremely bias response about themselves moreover the ratings can also be incorrect as the rater may not have a good knowledge of the person who is being rated. Another major variable, which weakens the validity, is social desirability response set. Here the individual can be inclined to answer the questions in a manner, which is socially desirable, even if it means that the answer will not be correct. If the test was to be replicated one could use a single dimension personality test.
References
Hamachek, D. Encounters with Self, Fourth edition (1991) Rinehart and Winston Inc, (pp. 298-299)
Carducci, B. J. (1998). The Psychology of Personality (pp. 17-59) Brooks/Cole Publishing Company
Eysenck, M (1998). Psychology an Integrated Approach, 437-452
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative description of Personality: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal Of personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229
Appendix 2: Correlations
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Correlations
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
Nonparametric Correlations
